Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Chakrabarti, private schools, and hypocrisy

It is not necessarily hypocrisy to argue against allowing X (e.g.
private/selective schooling) whilst nevertheless buying X for your kids. E.g. if
air was privatised and sold, I'd fight that tooth and nail, while
buying it for my kids. Nothing hypocritical about that.

There
are important goods Chakrabarti cannot have for all kids while private
schools are in place (such as a level playing field when it comes to
careers in journalism, the civil service, etc.etc.). So Chakrabarti
argues against private schools. However,
for her not to buy private schooling for her own kids may, under the
present system that does allow and encourage private schools, be to
significantly disadvantage them. In which case it may be morally
permissable for Chakrabarti to buy private schooling for her kids if she
can afford it, notwithstanding her moral objection to private
schooling.

This is not rocket science. I don't understand why so many fail to grasp the point. It's is if they don't want to.

Having said that, some very principled folk won't buy private schooling
for their kids even if they do think that will likely disadvantage
those children. That may or may not be beyond the call of duty. I am not
going to condemn anyone either way.

I agree. I am morally opposed to faith schools, but if my nearest school was a faith school, and if most of the neighbourhood kids were going to that school, and/or its Ofsted scores were better than the nearest secular school, then I reserve the right to do what ever performance is necessary to get my kids into that school. I'm not sure I could justify inflicting my moral and political principles on my kid if it risks him being the outsider in his own neighbourhood and educationally disadvantaged. The fact that you have to use the system you are fighting suggests it really is a crappy system.

Alas she is a hypocrite. She opposes selective education for other peoples' children on the basis it is damaging but chooses to send her child to a selective school.This indicates that she is happy to participate in selective education for her child but seeks to prevent other people choosing selective schools for their children.

A very interesting post but it puts me in a moral dilemma. On one hand it relieves me from my sense of gilt for appearing hypocritical in my stand such as the one Chakrabati finds herself, but on the other it seems to give me permission to engage in some unethical acts such as; in a country where corruption is rife and I am very opposed to it on ethical as well as practical grounds, am I morally excused for resorting to bribery sometimes in order move my business along when nothing else would do even though all I am trying to do is just to be left alone in peace to legally run my business?

On one hand the concept of "fighting the privatization of air and yet buying it for your kids" is quite liberating and I see how it applies in the case of Chakrabati. The concept helped me feel comfortable with myself regarding my own reactions to some behaviours that might be construed by others as hypocritical. But tell me Stephen; where would you draw the line between the case of "buying air for your kids" and being immoral? For example; would sometimes resorting to bribery to hold corrupt officials at bay in order to save your business, in a country where corruption is standard, o.k. even though you publically you hate corruption and fight it on moral and practical grounds? Is this also like "buying air for your kids", because it looks like buying life for your business which provides for your kids?

Posted on behalf of Alhazen: On one hand the concept of "fighting the privatization of air and yet buying it for your kids" is quite liberating and I see how it applies in the case of Chakrabati. The concept helped me feel comfortable with myself regarding my own reactions to some behaviours that might be construed by others as hypocritical. But tell me Stephen; where would you draw the line between the case of "buying air for your kids" and being immoral or even criminal? For example; would resorting to bribery sometimes in order to hold corrupt officials at bay to save your business, in a country where corruption is standard, o.k. even though you publically hate corruption and fight it on moral and practical grounds? Is this also like "buying air for your kids"? Because it looks here like you buying life for your business which provides for your kids?

In terms of a being contradictory it looks like a Class 2. Type A. (Conception to Synthetic Conception). Compared with other types I find this more serious and believe Chakrabarti should send her children to public school.

The case of Chakrabati and the question posed by Alhazen was brought up for discussion between a group of friends who meet regularly at Almajlis (saloon in Arabic) to discuss philosophical and social topics. They have concluded with the following points;

1-Perhaps it is permissible in a country where bribery is wide spread to resort to such means if not resorting to such means is likely to endanger one's business provided that all one is looking for is his/her basic rights. However, bribery should fought against and should reported to the concerned authority whenever possible and not used in order to further one's business vis a vis other similar businesses because then it would be clearly immoral to do so.

2-A point was raised that many times it is not clear if all one is asking for is his basic rights. Sometimes it is a matter of opinion that it is so. What should one do in such circumstances? Almajlis could not reach a clear answer as to what to do in such circumstances.

3-It was suggested that it is possible that there wasn't a universal moral ground to help one to decide what to do and that it might come down to each person's predilections. Each person has to decide for himself what is of greater value to him. For example, Chakrabati may have found it more important to give her children a better start in their future career than sacrifice her children's education in order not to appear as a hypocrite to the public. Another example, a person who is faced with the situation of resorting to bribery to save his business and who might be very religious may think it would be more important to please God by not bribing; save his soul in preference to saving his business so to speak. Another possibility is that another person might be so afraid of being caught bribing that he would never do it but would seek other means (e.g. going to court of law) to defend his basic rights and his business. The decision of what to do in such situations may ultimately come down to each individual's values, fears, desires, etc.

4-A point was raised that it would be hypocritical for a leader in say a Ministry of Education who is supposed to improve the independent schools to take his/her children to a private school. This situation is really like the situation Chakrabati found herself facing. If this person is doing very little to improve the independent schools then he/she is obviously a hypocrite. But if he/she is doing his/her utmost best, like Chakrabati, then it is arguable that he/she is sincere and not a hypocrite.

Does the analogy with bottled air hold up? It's not life and death - it's a good education or a, perhaps, slightly better education. The evidence seems to suggest that the educational advantage gained may not be great (see here http://tinyurl.com/gqfsv25). The advantage may be more nebulous i.e. a good school background may help in a particular career. This might be called an unfair advantage. I'd suggest that Chakrabati may well be seeking an unfair advantage for her children. To me, given her politics, that stinks of hypocrisy.

Popular Posts

Three key points to make when debating the existence of God. 1. Defining God First, in asking: Does God exist? It would be good to get some clarity about which God we are talking about. I
shall assume we are talking about a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and
perfectly good: Prof
William Lane Craig defines God as a 'maximally great being' - which he says requires
that God be morally perfect. Prof
Richard Swinburne similarly characterises God as 'a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good'.

It suffices to establish atheism, then (given these guys' characterisations/definitions of theism), that I show beyond reasonable doubt that there's no being that is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has
had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic
world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the
UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that
there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression,
a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human
concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most
of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact
remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend
to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism,
understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat
vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism
would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Folk who believe in fairies, or miracles, or alien
visitation, are generally fond of an argument called ARGUMENT TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION.
Here's an example of argument to the best explanation (or abduction, as it's sometimes known):
I see shoes poking out from under the curtain and the curtain
twitching slightly above them. I can also hear breathing. I infer there's
someone standing behind the curtain. Why? Because that's the best available
explanation of what I observe. True enough, the twitching might be caused by the breeze from an
open window and the shoes were just coincidentally placed in the same spot. But
I reckon that's a bit less likely than that there's someone standing there (for
what explains the breathing noise?)
Quite what makes an explanation the 'best' is controversial,
but there's some agreement that the simpler and more elegant an explanation,
the better. So, for example, I could explain that twitching curtain by supposing
tha…